>> All I said was that I don't think it can be
> improved upon by CR (in humans), because I think
> that humans who live to 120 have already gotten
> the benefit of what we call CR (whether it was
> through direct CR or some other means). In short,
> I think humans are not going to live longer than
> 120 without scientific intervention - lifestyle
> changes (which is what I would call CR) are not
> going to do it.
Why not? To argue that CR can't take anyone beyond ~120
requires, it seems to me, either: 1) the belief that CR
won't work in humans; 2) the belief that those who've lived
to 120 were practicing CR, inadvertently or not, to a
maximally beneficial degree, and with maximal consistency
over the course of their lives; or 3) the belief that
there's some way of getting the benefits of CR through "some
(1) and (2) seem highly implausible, for reasons that have
been discussed here before. As for (3), what other means
might there be, and why would you be certain -- if this is
indeed what you're thinking -- that such means exist? (I
agree they _might_ exist.)
To be sure, I doubt CR will get anyone to 160 or 170, the
life span you'd expect if CR works in humans, and if the 120
figure is a purely non-CR or non-"other means" maximum. I
think it's reasonable to assume that people who've made it
past 100 or 105 or so practiced a mild kind of CR (or
something that produced the same effect). But I don't think
it's reasonable to argue that ANYONE has practiced a strict
CR their whole lives. My guess is that strict CR started in
early adulthood could get some people to 140 or so.
But, barring a Dark Age that halts medical progress, no one
who's a young adultd will need to practice CR beyond the
2020's or 30's.
Brian Manning Delaney
My email address is here:
[Wrists: "Leave unambiguous typos."]
Note: All statements in this article are in jest; they
are not statements of fact.
"Mein Genie ist in meinen Nuestern." -Nietzsche.
** Please do not CC your Usenet articles to me. I'll find